Only the Truth can Deradicalize the Culture Warriors
Therefore, the question should be, what will bring people back to the truth
Welcome back to my series of Ideas to End the Culture Wars. Last time, I discussed how the two main tribes in the culture wars, the 'left' and the 'right', are ultimately meaningless and incoherent social constructs, and when we see through them, we are a step closer to ending the culture wars. Today, I want to turn to why so many people can't see this at the moment. I believe it's because they have lost sight of the objective truth. As it's commonly described, people on both sides of the culture wars have lost all common ground because they have lost a shared understanding of the reality that is rooted in the objective facts. Therefore, the only way to deradicalize them would be by bringing them back to objectivity. To do this, we have to identify things which are the enemy of objectivity, and oppose these things consistently.
The first enemy of objectivity is emotion. During the 2010s, a new style of left-wing activists, often associated with identity politics, tried to teach us that it is wrong to 'tone police'. I respectfully but strongly disagreed then, and I stand by my words to this day. The reason why we need a calm and rational discourse is because an emotionally charged discourse can't get us to the objective truth. We can't really discuss things rationally and get closer to the truth if one or both sides are emotionally worked up, because it would just descend into an emotional shouting match, with both sides reflexively rejecting all that the other side has to say. While the identity left has openly encouraged a politics of grievance in the past decade, the right are no better when it comes to being rational and avoiding getting emotional. The organized political right has been promoting moral panic after moral panic in recent years, and right-aligned culture warriors have become just as angry and irrational as their counterparts on the left.
The other important enemy of objectivity is tribalism. People are social animals, and we love to make friends. More importantly, we are evolutionarily adapted to trust those we are familiar with more. However, when it comes to ideas and facts in the modern world, this kind of bias is actually counterproductive to getting us to the truth. Therefore, we have to actively work to overcome it, by trying to listen to all sides of a story, and think for ourselves independently. In particular, we should be very wary of talking heads on TV and influencers in the new media trying to sell us a particular worldview. They often have a particular political agenda, and it is usually not a very nice agenda.
Finally, if we are to embrace objectivity, we need to be brave enough to demand evidence for the things people claim, especially if those claims could have a significant effect on politics. Postmodernism has normalized the subjective, philosophy over fact method of argumentation, but the right isn't immune from this either, with fact-free conspiracy theories increasingly being entertained. To counter both the postmodern left and the conspiracy theory right, we need to consistently demand solid evidence from people making unusual claims, especially if the claim is likely to have an impact on our politics. This is the only way we can push back on the trend away from arguments being rooted in the objective truth.
Cancel Culture is a Threat to Free Speech: Applying the RIDE Method
A systematic assessment of this claim
Welcome back to my RIDE method series, where I will attempt to systematically apply the RIDE method to various cultural and political controversies, in order to bring back calm, rational and evidence-based discourse.
This time, I want to use the RIDE method to examine competing claims about free speech. On one side are those who argue that the West has been in a crisis of free speech since the 2010s, with the rise of cancel culture, and people becoming afraid to speak what they truly think on a wide variety of matters, due to fear of social punishment. On the other side are those who argue that cancel culture doesn't exist, people are just being held accountable, and people are never cancelled in the age of the internet and social media anyway. The argument was particularly heated back in 2020, during the height of the BLM protests, with the people who supported BLM split between the two sides, for example.
We should also note that, while the arguments over cancel culture do have a bit of overlap with the 'woke vs anti-woke' phenomenon, it is not the same thing, because here we are only dealing with free speech issues, not the broader questions of identity, objectivity and so on. For example, someone can be agnostic about postmodernism while being passionate about free speech.
In this first part, I will be applying the RIDE method to the argument that cancel culture is real, and that it poses a genuine threat to free speech.
R for being Rational and Reasonable: MIXED. The rise of phenomenon like de-platforming, 'safe speech', 'progressive stack' speaking systems and so on is objectively a relatively new phenomenon that arose in the 2010s. This is objectively true no matter what one thinks of the accusations of 'cancel culture'. Therefore, free speech activists are indeed rational and reasonable for pointing this out. While they have stressed the serious consequences of compromising free speech, on the whole, they have not otherwise sought to rile up emotions or stoke moral panics to serve a particular political agenda. However, some have noticed double standards among certain free speech activists: they seem to tolerate right-wing cancel culture, often supported by authoritarian state action, even as they denounce left-wing cancel culture. This double standard by no means applies to the free speech movement as a whole. However, its mere presence can potentially threaten the integrity and credibility of the movement. Therefore, genuine free speech activists need to call it out.
I for Independent Thinking: PASS. The free speech activists who are opposing cancel culture aim to restore the level of free speech that existed in the West before the rise of cancel culture, i.e. before about a decade ago, at the very minimum. In doing this, they can only have a good effect on independent thinking. Those opposing cancel culture appear to be doing it in good faith, and they don't appear to have an agenda to force the discourse in a pre-determined direction by opposing cancel culture alone (nor do I think it would be possible to do so). The fact that the free speech activists come from across the political spectrum is objective proof that their concerns are not the result of tribalist influence. Overall, I think there is no reason to doubt that they should pass this question.
D for Defending Freedom: MIXED. The rise of phenomenon like de-platforming, 'safe speech', 'progressive stack' speaking systems and so on objectively places new limits on free speech that were alien to Western culture before the 2010s. As such, calling out and opposing these phenomenon represents a defense against encroachment on long-standing free speech norms, and should be commended. However, as previously mentioned, some have pointed out that certain free speech activists seem to be focused only on the authoritarians on the left, and are not doing enough to oppose the authoritarians on the right. This represents a major gap in one's commitment to freedom that needs to be addressed. This is especially important now that 'postliberal' ideas and forces are gaining ground on the right.
E for Evidence: PASS. To pass the E for Evidence test, those who say that cancel culture is a problem merely need to demonstrate that cancel culture exists objectively, and that it is a problem objectively. It really is a low bar to clear. Almost every incident of cancel culture highlighted by the free speech activists objectively happened, and nobody is contesting that these incidents really did happen. The sheer number of such incidents throughout the Western world in the past decade alone points to a real phenomenon. Hence, there is plenty of evidence that what they call cancel culture exists. The fact that certain viewpoints have become taboo in certain circles is evidence that ideas have been silenced. Hence, at least for those who are committed to the maintenance of a fair and free marketplace of ideas, it is proven objectively that cancel culture is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
Next time, I will be applying the RIDE method to the argument that cancel culture is not a problem. Afterwards, I will be making some conclusions as to what we have learned.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
You can also read and follow TaraElla's second substack, focused on political philosophy, here.
I really admire your activism and optimism. One challenge is in that that humans are irrational and tribal in our natural starting point. Plus that politics is not about truth vs untrue in general but more about what is more or less true vs more or less untrue
Let me offer you a way of looking at the "sides" in the current "culture" conflicts.
You talk about the tribalist right and the progressive left with the objective and rational in the middle. True enough as far as it goes.
Ken Wilber argues that these as well as other modes of thought are developmental and represent a different way of thinking and understanding the world at each level. Level 4 in Wilber's model is premodern, mythic, ethnocentric and thinking is based on concrete operations and rule governance. Level 5 is modern, scientific, sociocentric and thinking is based on formal operations and is rational. Level 6 is modern, pluralistic, relativistic, worldcentric and thinking is meta systemic. Levels 7 and 8 have been identified but, at present, are not a large enough cohort to have a major effect.
There is reason to consider these levels as developing from a biological and environmental interaction. Everyone starts at level 1 and works their way forward. There appears to be a critical period for this development that typically ends around the end of the adolescent period. However far you have developed by that time typically marks the end of your cognitive development. Where you arrive is considered to be fixed biologically and unlikely to change unless there is an increase in brain plasticity coupled with growth stimulating environmental experiences. Based on some very recent research the only demonstrated way to significantly stimulate brain plasticity is through psychedelics.
From reading your posts, I would say that you are very probably operating from a level 5. The people at level 4 don't fully understand where you're coming from and the people at level 6 understand where you're coming from but consider you to be naive. How to deal with these differing understandings of how the world operates is a conundrum, and very likely one that won't be solved until a higher level, probably level 7, becomes culturally dominant. Much of the conflict today appears to be due to fairly large contingents of 4, 5 and 6 and thus a lack of dominance by a given level.
The best hope is to create a political framework in which the worst aspects of the varying factions are constrained and each gets enough of what it wants to make the framework tolerable. This in itself will not be an easy task but probably more doable than trying to upgrade arrested cognitive development.